W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2006

Re: extensibility of role/class/property/rel Re: Security Markup

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:54:28 +0900
Message-Id: <3ACC24D4-2E24-4CF9-B5C4-CDFB7610352C@w3.org>
Cc: XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>

Hi Mark,

Le 22 août 06 à 18:01, Mark Birbeck a écrit :
> Karl,
>
>> but the issue, I have raised is about the second aspects, which is
>> the mechanism to prefetch values and their definitions in a user
>> agents. The same way, it is possible to fetch DTD, schemas, etc and
>> do something with them because the software knows the grammar for
>> reading a DTD or schema
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that behaviour can be
> defined using RDF, and this RDF can be retrieved at run-time based on
> the use of @role.

Not exactly and not necessary RDF, but it's one possibility.
Restating the issue:

When someone, an organization, a group want to define a vocabulary  
for property, role, class, etc to be used in XHTML 2.0

	1. There must be a file with the values and their associate  
definitions somewhere on the Web.
	2. There must be an *interoperable* and *defined* mechanism to load  
the values and their definitions in a software.

It is not necessary the software for the software to understand the  
meaning of the values or to have a specific behaviour for each values.
But it is important that the user of the software can have access to  
the prose defining of the values, so developers do not have to  
hardcode all possible values and their definitions that groups could  
define.
The intent is to really:
	1. make the life of developers easier
	2. promote the usability of vocabularies
	3. promote the practice of well defined vocabularies


> If so, I agree with you 110%. That has been my
> 'dream', so to speak, since even before I got involved in the HTML WG.
> ;) However...as Shane has pointed out, what the group has been very
> careful to do, is not *mandate* this approach.

	HTML 4.01 made possible to have "alt" attributes, and "title"  
attributes, which gives more information about an information given  
in a document. It is exactly the same kind of approach.
	It has also accessibility and usability benefits for people  
authoring documents.

Example: Use case scenario in HTML 4.01

	A Web page author wants to add contact information on a Web page.  
The authoring tool has downloaded the value contained in http:// 
www.w3.org/2006/03/hcard

…
    <dt id="vcard">vcard</dt>
     <dd>A container for the rest of the class names defined in this  
XMDP profile.
      See <a href="../../2002/12/cal/rfc2426#sec1.">section 1. of RFC  
2426</a>.
     </dd>
…

And presents to the author a list of values and their associated  
definitions, then the author can choose among these values.

Another benefit is that the authoring can have up to date definitions  
if these ones are changing slightly.


> I think we've gone about as far as we can at this stage of the
> language's development by adding the necessary hooks for such
> functionality--@role, RDFa, and so on.

What kind of hooks would help to achieve the scenario described  
above? That would be very interesting indeed.

> The next phase is to let people
> use it, and see what emerges. Taxonomies like the one Al refers to
> will begin to emerge, and then we can start looking at how we define
> the features of those taxonomies, how we locate them, and so on. But
> it would be premature to try to define this now, since we just don't
> have the experience. (And that definition need not be in XHTML 2
> anyway, but should be a separate spec.)

It could be definitely a note ala
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/

The thing is that it is possible to call a stylesheet, there's the  
mechanism to do that. Is there a mechanism to tie the extension of  
values of roles, class, etc.

> So, the state of play is that we have a mechanism that can be used in
> a many ways...we have a 'hook'. This hook could be used simply as a
> container for a unique cookie that a browser or some server process
> understands inately (the QName as identifier), or the hook could point
> to some data to be retrieved and used by a process, such as a
> server-side transformation or dynamically in the browser itself to
> control behaviour (the QName as URI). But at the moment implementers
> can choose how to use it.

The hook is? namespace URI?



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 01:55:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:07 GMT